My Photo


Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad


Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« WMC and The Supreme Court - Wish I Said That | Main | State of the Union vs. Plotting Against the Government »

January 23, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Paul, check out our extended Education comment on NCLB reforms to your earlier State of the Union post.

Brian and Beth

Dan Sebald

* "Next, there is the matter of earmarks..."

Now that the Republicans no longer control Congress, we can end this practice.


Significant legislation has already passed both the House and Senate:

According to Shields and Brooks, substantive on the matter of reforms. Senate Republicans put up opposition at first but then all but two supported the bill on second thought.

So, this one is pretty certain to come across the president's desk, and with such popular support a veto is not in the cards. Therefore, jump out in front and make it appear as though it was the president's initiative.


Based on your comments you must be an admirer of Karl Marx. Most of used learned something when the Soviet Union's 70 year experiment with Communism collapsed. What did you learn? What do you think the top 1% should pay 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%? What will you do when revenue to the treasury declines because the wealth, like John Kerry's wife, shelter their income from excessivly high tax rates.

Dan Sebald

The 70 year history and failure of the Soviet Union is a little too complex to boil down to failing to find an appropriate tax rate.

What I learned is that a "country" (empire ostensibly) wealthy only in certain minerals covering vast tracts of land with a single party government that keeps a lot of the wealth the country produces (contrary to the founding principles) and spends much of its resources on the military (and in the process wreaks environmental destruction) and has a currency worthless in the rest of the world will go broke. A big part of what drove the Soviet Union to the brink--apart from imperial endeavors--was that we (the U.S.) outspent them in the cold war, which had an effect on our own economy (and environment) as well.

The U.S. government has been operating on deficits and debt for a long time. A government such as U.S.S.R. couldn't do such a thing because their currency wasn't something that could be traded on markets.

The U.S. economy was good in the 90s under a balanced budget. There was a market bubble, but not the biggest problem in the world. Then came the Bush administration, purposefully talking down the economy, in my opinion. Point being that one can find counter-examples all over in economics.

Top 1% tax rate? Well, consider that many of the top 1% get their earnings in stock which probably falls under capital gains and is taxed at 10-15%? If we bump that up to 40% (for sake of argument, i.e., something nearer typical income tax rates) and remove the cap on social security self employment tax we'd solve the social security problem so many Republicans are worried about. Then we can talk about economic stability. Politicos talk about reforming the tax code, but it's all a game of shifting the bill around from one economic class to another to find out who ultimately pays for stuff like wars.

Why can't a person who makes an outrageous amount of money not pay back the system that enables them to make an outrageous amount of money?

What to do when miserly tax dodgers start hiding cash in their mattresses? Cut military spending.

I'd be interested if there are any surveys of fairly well to do regarding their opinion about the need for tax cuts.

The comments to this entry are closed.